PsychoSarah
Chaotic Neutral
-_- you know very well that hypothetical things that don't exist are irrelevant to scientific theories.
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
-_- you know very well that hypothetical things that don't exist are irrelevant to scientific theories.so if you will find a self replicating car with dna. you will have no problem to claim that it's just evolved?
-_- you have no understanding of these vehicles if you think this would be a nested hierarchy. There are more differences between a car and an airplane than just "wings". There weren't "generations" of cars that gradually had more and more airplane traits until they began to fly.View attachment 206649
nice try. but we can find the same in vehicles, as you can see here. but it doesnt prove any common descent.
true but the argument is still valid because several reasons:We also find major violations of your hierarchy, such as cars with wings, cars with turbine engines like those found in a jet fighter, and a space shuttle with a parachute like those found on drag cars. Designs are spread throughout your hierarchy that easily violate that hierarchy.
true but the argument is still valid because several reasons:
1) those cases are the result of convergent design. on the same base of convergent evolution.
2) actually all those traits are also shared between all the 3 vehicles. we can find a parachute also in a jet fighter, a car and a space shuttle.
3) even if we will find hierarchy in vehicles it will not prove any common descent. so the claim that hierarchy prove common descent is false, because we know that all those vehicles cant evolve naturally.
-_- convergent evolution is determined via genetics and body structure. Cars don't have genes. Unlike vehicles, you can't just shove an organ from a fish into an amphibian and expect that to work out.true but the argument is still valid because several reasons:
1) those cases are the result of convergent design. on the same base of convergent evolution.
parachutes aren't a part of cars. That's like saying we can find hermit crabs and snails in the same shells, and ignoring that snails produce the shells while hermit crabs don't.2) actually all those traits are also shared between all the 3 vehicles. we can find a parachute also in a jet fighter, a car and a space shuttle.
-_- every evolution supporter on here has been telling you that vehicles DON'T fit into a hierarchy in part because they don't have common descent. Your comment suggests that an evolution supporter would claim that finding a hierarchy in vehicles would be evidence for common descent, when common descent doesn't apply to non-living items. Vehicles can't evolve because they aren't alive, they don't have genetic material, they don't reproduce.3) even if we will find hierarchy in vehicles it will not prove any common descent. so the claim that hierarchy prove common descent is false, because we know that all those vehicles cant evolve naturally.
and by the way: here is the position of a flying car in the vehicles cladogram:Your pictures aren't loading on my screen, but it is rather easy to show that there are numerous violations of a nested hierarchy for cars. For example, you can find the same tire on a Chevy car and a Ford car, but two different tires on the same model of Ford car. You can find the same engine in a specific Toyota car and Toyota pickup, but two different engines in two cars from the same Toyota car model. There are massive numbers of violations in a nested hierarchy of cars.
Cars with wings don't predate airplanes. Airplane designs weren't derived from edits of car designs. In fact, they are based on birds.and by the way: here is the position of a flying car in the vehicles cladogram:
View attachment 206683
and by the way: here is the position of a flying car in the vehicles cladogram:
View attachment 206683
parachutes aren't a part of cars. That's like saying we can find hermit crabs and snails in the same shells, and ignoring that snails produce the shells while hermit crabs don't.
Sigh, furthermore, parachutes were an independent invention from both cars and planes that came after the development of both. So, both cars and planes having parachutes ruins the attempted "hierarchy".
You are really bad at cladograms. You made it so that flying cars predate jets... and you made them extinct XD. Also, cladograms don't usually have specific traits labelled in them. Also, you have an extra line at the end that doesn't lead to any label, so it shouldn't be there, or all the other labels should be moved over and the branch farthest to the left removed.and now with convergent design:
View attachment 206684
see how easy it is to prove that a space shuttle evolved from a car?
View attachment 206686 and now with convergent design:
Sigh, furthermore, parachutes were an independent invention from both cars and planes that came after the development of both. So, both cars and planes having parachutes ruins the attempted "hierarchy".
so if you will find a self replicating car with dna. you will have no problem to claim that it's just evolved?
If we could produce a manufactured object with hereditary material that was able to reproduce itself, it would, of course, still be designed. However, it would be designed with the ability to evolve.
Interesting concept.What is observed is a variation within a means, A trip to Wal Mart and back as opposed to a one way trip to the moon. There are a variety of dogs but no dogs jumping to other species never to return. They can breed dogs for special effects but when put back in the wild there is a gradual return to the original. (Mean) That is what is observed. No Poodle is on a one way trip to becomming a cockroach and it is nonsense to suppose such things.
The thing is, you are taking a superficial look at a structure and saying that it is the same thing.View attachment 206686 and now with convergent design:
see how easy it is to prove that a space shuttle evolved from a car?
thanks. so basically you are saying that we cant find for instance a case with a gene that is shared between 2 species but doenst shared between some species between them?
another problem is that we can find cases with hierarchy also in man-made objects:
View attachment 206686 and now with convergent design:
see how easy it is to prove that a space shuttle evolved from a car?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?